Building and Empowering FLCs Within the Command and General Staff College

By Anatole Balma, PhD

Article published on: November 1st, 2025 in the Army Civilian Professional Journal November 2025, Vol. 1, No. 4 Edition

Read Time: < 10 mins

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College building with ceremonial formation of soldiers holding international flags in front of the main entrance, representing the institution's commitment to developing world-class military faculty and leaders through collaborative education programs.

(Photo courtesy of CGSC)

Knowledge of the past helps create a better future; hence the English philosopher Gilbert Keith Chesterton’ s assertion: “People rarely do things without a reason, and just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s pointless.”

Authors Jay Van Der Werff and Ellen Bogdan argue that, “Army University leadership posit that its faculty is its center of gravity, and faculty developers could not agree more.” 1 They suggest that students see faculty as the face of Army education and training. The Army University and Command and General Staff College (CGSC) are committed to developing, sustaining, and promoting world-class faculty who are critical and creative thinkers, subject-matter experts, and promoters of collaborative learning and reflective practice. To support this line of effort, highly qualified, dedicated instructors are hired to make this commitment a reality. However, several survey results have indicated that we are not there yet. Why is it that we seem to not be successful in developing world class faculty? Will the creation of Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) be a remedy?

Purpose

FLCs offer a structured yet flexible framework to enhance collaborative teaching practices and institutional transformation. For CGSC, implementing FLCs could strengthen its existing faculty development programs while addressing modern educational challenges in military education and training.

What are FLCs?

For the purposes of this article, the author has compared FLC models from several different universities to formulate the list of characteristics below. FLCs are peer-led groups of faculty members, typically consisting of six to twelve participants, who engage in an active, collaborative program over an extended period, usually an academic year. 2 These communities are designed to provide encouragement, support, and reflection for faculty as they explore specific topics or issues related to teaching and learning. 3

Key characteristics of FLCs include the following: (1) A shared purpose: Members focus on a common interest, question, or problem related to teaching and learning; (2) Regular meetings: Participants gather approximately every three weeks during the academic year; (3) Collaborative learning: FLCs foster a supportive environment for experimentation, growth, and peer support in teaching practices; (4) Multidisciplinary approach: They often bring together faculty from different departments and colleges, promoting cross-disciplinary networking and collaboration; (5) Scholarly engagement: FLCs encourage evidence-based teaching and the development of the scholarship of teaching and learning; (6) Practical outcomes: Participants often work on personal projects to improve specific courses or programs and share their knowledge with the wider university community. 4

FLCs have been shown to stimulate innovation, increase collaboration, and provide a flexible structure for professional development in higher education. They also help combat the isolation often experienced by faculty members and foster a sense of community among participants. 5

Role of FLCs

FLCs play a crucial role in supporting and enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. These communities bring together faculty members from various disciplines and ranks to engage in collaborative, long-term professional development focused on teaching and learning. 6

Key Functions of FLCs

One of the key functions of FLCs is fostering collaboration. FLCs create a space for faculty to collaborate across disciplines, sharing ideas and best practices. 7 Another key function is enhancing teaching skills; that is, participants gain increased knowledge and versatility with pedagogical strategies, leading to improved teaching performance. 8 Additionally, FLCs support innovation. FLCs provide a safe environment for faculty to take risks, experiment with new teaching methods, and innovate in their classrooms. 9 FLCs also help to build communities, which cultivate a sense of belonging among faculty members, fostering university-wide connections. 10 Finally, FLCs address challenges. They serve as forums for discussing and resolving teaching and learning issues, particularly during curriculum changes or technology integration. 11

Benefits of FLCs

Benefits of FLCs include increased faculty excitement and engagement in teaching; broader understanding of the institution due to cross-disciplinary interactions; improved student learning outcomes; enhanced reflection on teaching practices and liberal education; and increased rewards and prestige for excellent teaching. 12

FLCs differ from casual meetings or book clubs by offering a structured, long-term commitment to a specific topic or goal, typically lasting from five weeks to an academic year. 13 This format allows for deeper exploration of teaching and learning issues, fostering meaningful growth and development among faculty members.

Leveraging CGSC’s Existing Framework

CGSC has pioneered faculty development since the 1980s, notably through its small-group seminar methodology and the Common Faculty Development Program (CFDP). 14 The CFDP’s four-phase structure— foundation, technical, certification, and continuing professional development—aligns with FLC principles by emphasizing cross-disciplinary collaboration, adult learning theory application, and ongoing skill refinement. 15 FLCs could integrate into the four-phase program (foundation, technical, certification, and continuing professional development) by creating cohorts focused on topics like adaptive courseware integration, equity in instructional design, or technology- enhanced learning. For example, the Adaptive Courseware Community of Practice at Colorado State University (CSU) demonstrated success in collaborative problem-solving and equitable teaching practices through structured meetings. 16

Strategic Benefits for Military Education

FLCs at CGSC could enhance curriculum coherence by fostering interdisciplinary dialogue about general education and learning outcomes; support instructor well-being through peer mentorship, particularly for pre-tenure or new faculty navigating institutional expectations; advance equity initiatives by developing inclusive pedagogical strategies tailored to diverse military learners; and accelerate innovation via pilot projects in adaptive learning technologies or scenario-based training. 17

Implementation Considerations

Structural Adaptions

  • Group composition: Cross-functional teams of eight to fourteen faculty/staff from varying roles (e.g., drill instructors, curriculum developers). 18
  • Incentives: Align participation with CFDP milestones or Army civilian training, education, and development system goals. 19
  • Leadership support: Utilize CGSC’s faculty development division to coordinate resources and workshops.

“These communities bring together faculty members from various disciplines and ranks to engage in collaborative, long-term professional development focused on teaching and learning.”

Challenges and Solutions

  • Scheduling barriers: Hybrid meetings (in-person/ virtual) and rotating facilitation duties. 20
  • Cultural resistance: Highlight success metrics from analogous programs, like UC San Diego’s interdisciplinary FLCs that improved teaching satisfaction. 21

Case Study: Small-Group Facilitation Legacy

CGSC’s historical emphasis on small-group instruction provides a natural foundation for FLCs. The college’s faculty development adjunct program, where experienced faculty co-facilitate training sessions, mirrors FLC practices of collaborative skill-sharing. 22 Expanding this model to include topic-specific communities (e.g., counterinsurgency tactics, leadership ethics) could deepen subject-matter expertise while maintaining pedagogical rigor.

Empowering FLCs

FLCs are powerful tools for fostering collaboration, innovation, and professional growth among educators in higher education. These communities create spaces for small groups of faculty to learn, grow, and experiment together in pursuit of shared goals related to teaching and learning. 23 FLCs offer numerous advantages for both individual faculty members and entire institutions. For example, there is the potential for enhanced teaching practices. FLCs provide an environment for faculty to discuss and reflect on their teaching, leading to improved practices and better student learning outcomes. 24 There is cross-disciplinary collaboration. These communities encourage faculty to collaborate across departments and disciplines, breaking down institutional silos. 25 Another opportunity arises in professional development. FLCs offer opportunities for faculty to explore new pedagogical approaches, technologies, and research methodologies. 26 There is increased interest in teaching. Participation in FLCs often leads to greater faculty engagement and excitement about teaching and learning. 27 Finally, one will find support for early-career faculty. FLCs can provide crucial support and mentorship for pre-tenured faculty, helping them navigate the challenges of academic life.

Implementing Successful Faculty Learning Communities

To empower FLCs and maximize their impact, CGSC should seek to foster the following characteristics in these groups:

  • Diverse membership: Include faculty from various disciplines, ranks, and career stages to foster rich discussions and diverse perspectives. 28
  • Clear goals and structure: Establish clear objectives for the FLC and provide a structured framework for meetings and activities. 29
  • Supportive environment: Create a safe and supportive space where faculty feel comfortable taking risks, sharing ideas, and receiving feedback. 30
  • Resources and support: Provide necessary resources, such as funding for projects, access to relevant literature, and administrative support. 31
  • Integration with institutional goals: Align FLC activities with broader CGSC institutional objectives to ensure relevance and impact. 32

Impact on Institutional Culture

Over time, empowered Faculty Learning Communities can transform institutional culture by fostering a culture of continuous improvement in teaching and learning, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and communication, enhancing faculty satisfaction and retention, and driving innovation in curriculum development and pedagogical approaches. 33

Conclusion

Integrating FLCs into CGSC’s faculty development ecosystem would reinforce the Army’s shift toward learner-centered education. By combining CFDP’s structured competencies with FLC’s collaborative ethos, CGSC can cultivate a culture of continuous improvement, which is essential for preparing military leaders in an evolving global landscape. By investing in and empowering Faculty Learning Communities, CGSC can create a dynamic, collaborative environment that supports ongoing professional development and ultimately enhances the quality of education for students and produces world class faculty for the institution.

Notes

1. Jay A. Van Der Werff and Ellen Bogdan, “Fostering Instructor Competencies through Army University’s Faculty Development Program,” Journal of Military Learning 2, vol. 1 (2018): 44–52.

2. Office of Teaching and Learning, “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Denver.

3. “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Georgia, https://ctl.uga.edu/programs/faculty/faculty-learning-communities/".

4. “What is a Faculty Learning Community?,” Southern Methodist University, https://www.smu.edu/provost/cte/services/communities; “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Georgia; “Faculty Learning Communities,” George Mason University, https://stearnscenter.gmu.edu/programs/stearns-center-opportunities/ faculty-learning-communities/; “Faculty Learning Communities (FLCS),” Missouri State University, https://www.missouristate.edu/FCTL/facultylearningcommunities.htm; “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Georgia; “What is a Faculty Learning Community?,” Southern Methodist University.

5. “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Florida, https://teach.ufl.edu/events-and-workshops/flc/.

6. “Faculty Learning Communities,” George Mason University.

7. “Faculty Learning Communities (FLC),” Miami University, https://miamioh.edu/centers-institutes/center-for-teaching-excellence/faculty-learning-communities/index.html.

8. Office of Teaching and Learning, “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Denver.

9. “Faculty Learning Communities,” George Mason University.

10. “Faculty Learning Communities (FLC),” Miami University.

11. Ibid.

12. Marion Engin and Fairlie Atkinson, “Faculty Learning Communities: A Model for Supporting Curriculum Changes in Higher Education,” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 27, vol. 2 (2015): 164–174. http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

13. Office of Teaching and Learning, “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Denver; Ibid.; Ibid.; “Faculty Learning Communities (FLC),” Miami University; Ibid.

14. Office of Teaching and Learning, “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Denver.

15. Van Der Werff and Bogdan, “Fostering Instructor Competencies through Army University’s Faculty Development Program.”

16. Milton D. Cox, “Faculty Learning Communities: Change Agents for Transforming Institutions into Learning Organizations,” To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development 19, vol. 1 (2001): 69–93.

17. Kim Hoke et al., Guide to Building a Faculty Learning Community (Colorado State University, 2021): 4–6.

18. Cox, “Faculty Learning Communities”; Ibid.; Hoke et al., Guide to Building a Faculty Learning Community, 5; Van Der Werff and Bogdan, “Fostering Instructor Competencies through Army University’s Faculty Development Program.”

19. Cox, “Faculty Learning Communities: Change Agents for Transforming Institutions into Learning Organizations.”

20. Van Der Werff and Bogdan, “Fostering Instructor Competencies through Army University’s Faculty Development Program.”

21. Hoke et al., Guide to Building a Faculty Learning Community, 4.

22. Ibid.

23. “Faculty Learning Communities,” San José State University,

24. Bart Ganzert, “The Benefit of a Faculty Learning Community,” Winston-Salem State University, 10 April 2023, https://www.wssu.edu/administration/faculty-and-staff/citi/resources/citi-blogs/the-benefit-of-a-faculty-learning-community.html.

25. “Faculty Learning Communities,” San José State University.

26. Office of Teaching and Learning, “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Denver.

27. Milton Cox, “Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2024 (2004): 5–23.

28. Office of Teaching and Learning, “Faculty Learning Communities,” University of Denver.

29. Brandon Sanderson, “The Philosophy of Professional Writing: Brandon Sanderson’s Writing Lecture #1 (2025),” Dragonsteel (blog), 17 January 2025, https://www.brandonsanderson.com/blogs/blog/brandon-sandersons-writing-class-2025-week-1

30. Ganzert, “The Benefit of a Faculty Learning Community.”

31. “Faculty Learning Communities,” San José State University.

32. Cox, “Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities.”

33. Ibid.; “Faculty Learning Communities,” San José State University; Cox, “Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities;” Grace Oh, “The Intersection between Writing and Medicine with Lakshmi Krishnan, Lenny Grant and Jeremy Greene,” The Johns Hopkins Newsletter, 4 February 2025, https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2025/02/the-intersection-between-writing-and-medicine-with-lakshmi-krishnan-lenny-grant-and-jeremy-greene.

Author

Anatole Balma, PhD, is a senior instructional systems specialist with the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He previously served as a training specialist with the U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence at Fort Huachuca, AZ. He also taught at Purdue University as an assistant professor.